The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-06-29
Mr.. Calhoun's Essay OH JOURNALISM

Mr.. Calhoun informs US that "the Supreme
Court does not make laws 1t only construes
them" and they says the Supreme Court
"would, indeed, be doing wrong to take the
"bit in its teeth and to decide matter con.
'.trary to the Statute"
This is just what we contend the supreme
Court has done. They have made decision
which we belive is absolutely and positively
con ntrary to the plain reading Of the Statute
Mr.. Calhoun asks us to tell him what law.
yers know about electricity. We weuld an
swer this question by saying If lawyers are
not better informed on electricity than they
are about the existing laws ofloe State, thei1
informationon electricity would be limited.
Mr.. Calhoun says:
mo doubt If the Supreme Court would un'
dertake to dictate the management OF your
paper, its interference would be received Win
very Ill grace"
In this statement Mr.. Calhoun Is entirely
correct, The Supreme Court have no right to
interneddle with the business of the Press
and Banner so long as its editor does not
make himself amenable to the laws. But II
the Supreme Court shall make decision
which is contrary to law, and ruinous to a
large portion Of the people, it is not only the
privilege Of the press, but 1t is the duty Of the
press, to sneak out. "Let 1t be instilled into
the hearts of your children that the liberty of
the press is the palladium OF all your rights
II will be a nice state Of affairs when the acts
OF public officers may not be proper subjects
for criticism by the press or the people. The
press speaks for the people, and tyrants in all
ages have been the enemy OF a free press.
"The cat may look at the queen and
newspaper in Republican government may
with perfect propriety criticise the acts OF
even so high q tribunal as that Of the infalla.
BILE court itself. The people in Republican
government have no greater safeguard than
that Of O free press.
Although we have never made an express
sion as to whether we believe the improper
construction OF the law by the Supreme
Court in the Rush case makes good or bad
law, and although we have distinctly stated
this fact several times, we will repeat 1t
again. We do not say whether or not the law
as construed Is 'obnoxious," but we do say
and re-assert again, that the construction of
that law Is obnoxious"
Mr.. Calhoun says:
"The warfare on the Supreme Court Is with
out effect. 1t is oomb-proof and 1t has the
strength Of Its honest convictions to sustain
It,"
This sounds to US very much like Mr.. Cal
houn is little afraid that the court may
conclude to reconsider It's former ill-advised
judgment. In this apprehension, we think
Mr.. Calhoun has well grounded fears. He
knows that wise men often correct their
errors, and he also knows that men OF lesser
calibre, like dead men, never change their
mind. The gentlemen OF the Supreme Court
being distinguished no less for their leasning
and their legal attain ments than for the up-
rightness Of thier character and the purity Of
their motives, Mr.. Calhoun may well try to
brace up the Court in sustaining q Judgment
which was contrary to his expectation at the
time